If Ubisoft's DRM servers fail (or your internet connection dies), the legit customer can't play their game, while the pirate can.Doxcology said:
Pachter Supports Ubisoft DRM
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
Okay, by that analogy.Logan Westbrook said:
Let's say you walked into a shop, and it has security guards posted at every entrance and at the end of every isle. Now, let's say they have you hold up a sign that says "I AM NOT STEALING FROM THIS STORE". If you drop the sign by accident or put it aside to pick something up, the guards grab you and won't let you go until you pick up the sign again.
THAT's what Ubisoft's DRM is like in my opinion.
Grah! He and the point are in entirely different dimensions.
And now, whenever anyone tries to point it out, they will have to start with "It is not that I endorse theft, but this is wakkawakkawak....", and nobody will pay attention to it and think "This guy is saying that you should steal stuff! What an asshole.".
Stupid lawyer man.
And now, whenever anyone tries to point it out, they will have to start with "It is not that I endorse theft, but this is wakkawakkawak....", and nobody will pay attention to it and think "This guy is saying that you should steal stuff! What an asshole.".
Stupid lawyer man.
It's almost as if he wanted to cause an uproar.Kanodin0 said:
Honestly, I dislike DRMs, but Steam is one example that DRMs can be tolerable.
I was much more interested in Pachter's analysis of whether Ubisoft's DRM is actually a smart market move (or not) and if it is working, rather than his opinion.
People have varied opinions on DRM, but the real question is "How useful are these measures when you're forcing consumers to stick with you rather than catering to them?"
Clearly Pacther missed the point and the opportunity. He failed to enlighten the subject and its scenario, regardless of whether he agrees with it or not.
And this explains stand-alone Guitar Hero and Rock Band and DJ Hero peripherals and their still valid price tags how?squid5580 said:
You have identified one incentive to encourage repeat play, but that doesn't disappear other ways they are monetizing even used games. Pre-orders and the incentive codes maximize the sales pipeline and help a bunch of six-figure wunderkinds sleep on the job, sure, but they ALSO get you a game zero-minute in your timezone and other transient eye of the beholder value adds. That's but ONE example of how an onerous behavior still has some upside for the consumer. Achievements indeed have an intent to encourage ownership if possible. If it now has online items, and EA charges $10 to activate a PSN/XBox account for that game, well, that seems like a fine trade to me. If their math is wrong and it becomes cheaper to buy the game new, they still get money for that unit.
And they still won't get anything from a used sale if the original owner never activated, or if the used purchaser never wants to. I can read Pachter and hear the meaning:
"They HAVE to be fine with it. There's nothing publishers can do to eliminate used games because there's no chance in hell physical games are going away [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100861-Pachter-Microsoft-Wants-to-Own-the-Internet] and neither is the doctrine of first sale. All they can do is try to shape trends like online play and peripherals to capture revenue from those DFS users."
In all, pretty OK for the players, it seems to me.
Email straight from the man himself, to me:Logan Westbrook said:
You're right, I missed the point of the question and looked at it as asking whether they could so, not whether it was a pain for legitimate users. That's the consequence of answering 20 questions in a single sitting of one hour, it is somewhat of a blur.
It is definitely Draconian, and does not allow for game play without an Internet connection, making it tough for legitimate purchasers to play as they see fit.
I suppose the real issue is that PC game sales have dropped to 3% of the total, down from 10% a few years ago, and publishers are so fed up with piracy that they are trying to prevent piracy, even if it is a pain for legitimate buyers. I believe we will see PC versions go away, much as we did with EA Sports games. DRM is a precursor to outright abandonment of the PC version.
You are right, I didn't answer the question
------------------------------------------------------------------
And that is where the email ends.
I've never had a high opinion of Pachter, I see him as a loudmouth with very little relevance. Now I know he can't think things through and is simple also. I agree that copying and distributing a game should be stopped, but this is not the way to do it. This method gives full control of the gaming experience to the publisher, not a good scenario. And it's pretty clear that the publishers DO have a problem with you selling your game used. They've all said as much, repeatedly, often calling the used market a worse problem than piracy. Interesting how this DRM stops that as well. The statement that anything the publisher does is all right as far as he's concerned just makes me bang my head against the wall. Mr. Pachter, when the corporations finish taking all of our consumer rights away, it's people like you we'll have to thank.
Jackass.
Jackass.
Can you call yourself an analyst with a straight face while referencing concepts that you have a brazen lack of understanding about?
When a company sells you a game they have no problem if you resell it and someone else buys it and they have no problem if you give it away.
Can't do those with Ubisoft's system.
The guys that ran bittorrent [sic] are in jail
That's false on a very vast number of levels, not the least of which being that there were no "guys that ran bittorrent" in the first place. It's not a centrally organized technology.
In this instance "analyst" is a euphemism for someone who casts predictions from an armchair about subjects they have no information about.
When a company sells you a game they have no problem if you resell it and someone else buys it and they have no problem if you give it away.
Can't do those with Ubisoft's system.
The guys that ran bittorrent [sic] are in jail
That's false on a very vast number of levels, not the least of which being that there were no "guys that ran bittorrent" in the first place. It's not a centrally organized technology.
In this instance "analyst" is a euphemism for someone who casts predictions from an armchair about subjects they have no information about.
You bash on him for being uneducated, yet you yourself don't seem to understand the situation. Things like EA's Project $10 aren't to try and step on the used games market, it's a move to try and make a profit off of it. If EA wanted to stomp the used games market, they would require that you have an activation code (similar to the one already packaged in recent games as part of P$10), except that instead of giving you free content, the activation code would let you play the game. Your game disc would become useless to the likes of Gamestop or other such re-sellers because without the activation code you can't play the game anyway.LeonLethality said:
So while I don't necessarily agree with Pachter's statements on Ubisoft's DRM, he IS right when he says that the companies don't care if you sell their game to someone else.
I bashed on him? When? WHERE?!WhiteTigerShiro said:
I was pointing out that he said companies have no problem, yes they do have a problem, some are more active about it than others. Used game sales don't make them money and that is something I am sure they have a problem with.
Eh... semantics. I suppose if you have a stick up your ass, then "called him out" would be a better phrasing. Though my point still stands. If EA really hated the resale business, they'd just make their games require an activation code to play them. Project $10 isn't to try and stomp-out Gamestop, it's to try and (indirectly) make money from Gamestop's used games sales.LeonLethality said:
I care about this moron's opinion as much as I care about Ubisoft these days. And an Old Lawyer commenting on games is about as intelligent as me discussing how to fold space with a box of rice crispies. Quit giving people this stupid the time of day Logan, let them die in peace, I don't want to hear the death throws.
Companies would prefer to make money right? So of course they are going to do things to encourage buying things new or getting money if purchased used. If they could they would stop used game sales, wouldn't you if you ran a company and wanted to make money? Preventing used game sale altogether would be a bad business move though so all they can do is encourage people to buy new or make money off the used sales.WhiteTigerShiro said:
